create-dss-project 0.1.0

package/template/scripts/reset-to-template.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# reset-to-template.sh
+# Strips project-specific data and restores the template to a clean state.
+# WARNING: This is destructive — all research, discovery, and dashboard data will be deleted.
+# Uses Australian English throughout.
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
+PROJECT_ROOT="$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/.." && pwd)"
+
+echo "============================================="
+echo "  TEMPLATE RESET — DESTRUCTIVE OPERATION"
+echo "============================================="
+echo ""
+echo "This will permanently delete:"
+echo "  - All files in research/competitors/, research/market/, research/technical/"
+echo "  - All files in discovery/calls/, discovery/prep/, discovery/outreach/"
+echo "  - data/entities.csv"
+echo "  - All files in dashboard/data/ (generated JSON)"
+echo "  - project.config.json"
+echo "  - docs/output/weekly-report-*.md"
+echo ""
+echo "This action CANNOT be undone (unless you have a git history to revert to)."
+echo ""
+
+read -p "Are you sure you want to proceed? Type 'yes' to confirm: " CONFIRM
+
+if [ "$CONFIRM" != "yes" ]; then
+  echo ""
+  echo "Aborted. No files were deleted."
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+echo ""
+echo "Resetting project..."
+DELETED_COUNT=0
+
+# Helper: remove all files in a directory except .gitkeep
+clean_directory() {
+  local dir="$1"
+  if [ -d "$dir" ]; then
+    local files
+    files=$(find "$dir" -type f -not -name ".gitkeep" 2>/dev/null || true)
+    if [ -n "$files" ]; then
+      echo "$files" | while read -r f; do
+        echo "  Deleted: ${f#$PROJECT_ROOT/}"
+        rm -f "$f"
+      done
+      # Ensure .gitkeep exists so the directory is preserved in git
+      touch "$dir/.gitkeep"
+    fi
+  fi
+}
+
+# Research directories
+echo ""
+echo "--- Cleaning research/ ---"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/research/competitors"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/research/market"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/research/technical"
+
+# Discovery directories
+echo ""
+echo "--- Cleaning discovery/ ---"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/discovery/calls"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/discovery/prep"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/discovery/outreach"
+
+# Data directory
+echo ""
+echo "--- Cleaning data/ ---"
+if [ -f "$PROJECT_ROOT/data/entities.csv" ]; then
+  echo "  Deleted: data/entities.csv"
+  rm -f "$PROJECT_ROOT/data/entities.csv"
+fi
+
+# Dashboard data
+echo ""
+echo "--- Cleaning dashboard/data/ ---"
+clean_directory "$PROJECT_ROOT/dashboard/data"
+
+# Project config
+echo ""
+echo "--- Removing project.config.json ---"
+if [ -f "$PROJECT_ROOT/project.config.json" ]; then
+  echo "  Deleted: project.config.json"
+  rm -f "$PROJECT_ROOT/project.config.json"
+else
+  echo "  (not present, skipping)"
+fi
+
+# Weekly reports
+echo ""
+echo "--- Removing weekly reports ---"
+REPORTS=$(find "$PROJECT_ROOT/docs/output" -name "weekly-report-*.md" 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$REPORTS" ]; then
+  echo "$REPORTS" | while read -r f; do
+    echo "  Deleted: ${f#$PROJECT_ROOT/}"
+    rm -f "$f"
+  done
+else
+  echo "  (none found, skipping)"
+fi
+
+echo ""
+echo "============================================="
+echo "  Reset Complete"
+echo "============================================="
+echo ""
+echo "NOTE: Template placeholder values (e.g. {{PROJECT_NAME}}) have NOT been"
+echo "restored in markdown files. For a fully clean template, re-clone the"
+echo "repository from the original source."
+echo ""
+echo "Next step: Run /onboard to set up a new project."

package/template/scripts/validate-placeholders.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# validate-placeholders.sh
+# Scans the project for unreplaced {{PLACEHOLDER}} tokens.
+# Exits 0 if none found, 1 if any remain.
+# Uses Australian English throughout.
+
+set -euo pipefail
+
+# Determine the project root (one level up from scripts/)
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
+PROJECT_ROOT="$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/.." && pwd)"
+
+# If a directory argument is provided, search only that path
+SEARCH_PATH="${1:-$PROJECT_ROOT}"
+
+echo "=== Placeholder Validation ==="
+echo "Searching: $SEARCH_PATH"
+echo ""
+
+# Find all matching files, excluding node_modules and .git
+MATCHES=$(grep -rn '{{[A-Z_]*}}' \
+  --include="*.md" \
+  --include="*.js" \
+  --include="*.html" \
+  --include="*.json" \
+  "$SEARCH_PATH" 2>/dev/null \
+  | grep -v 'node_modules' \
+  | grep -v '\.git/' \
+  | grep -v 'project.config.example.json' \
+  || true)
+
+if [ -z "$MATCHES" ]; then
+  echo "No unreplaced placeholders found. All clear."
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+# Count the total number of placeholder occurrences
+TOTAL=$(echo "$MATCHES" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+
+echo "Found $TOTAL unreplaced placeholder(s):"
+echo ""
+echo "$MATCHES"
+echo ""
+echo "FAIL: $TOTAL placeholder(s) still need replacing."
+echo "Run /onboard or manually replace each {{PLACEHOLDER}} with the correct value."
+
+exit 1

package/template/skills/compare-options/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+---
+name: compare-options
+description: Score and compare 2-5 strategic options using the project's scoring framework. Produces a side-by-side comparison with evidence-backed scores. Use when choosing between strategic directions, entry angles, or product approaches.
+---
+
+# Compare Options
+
+Structured comparison of strategic options using the scoring framework defined in `memory/scoring.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0 — Define Options
+
+Ask the user to describe 2–5 options. For each option, capture:
+- **Code** (short identifier, e.g., "A", "SaaS-first", "Partner-led")
+- **Description** (1–2 sentences)
+
+If options are already defined in `memory/scoring.md` → use those.
+
+## Step 1 — Load Scoring Framework
+
+Read `memory/scoring.md` to get:
+- The scoring dimensions (e.g., White Space, Urgency, Feasibility, Defensibility, Revenue Potential)
+- Any existing scores
+- The current recommended strategy (if any)
+
+## Step 2 — Score Each Option
+
+For each option, score against each dimension (1–5):
+
+| Score | Meaning |
+|-------|---------|
+| 5 | Exceptional — clear, strong evidence |
+| 4 | Good — solid evidence, minor gaps |
+| 3 | Moderate — mixed evidence |
+| 2 | Weak — limited evidence, significant concerns |
+| 1 | Poor — evidence against, or no evidence |
+
+**Every score must cite evidence.** Reference specific findings from:
+- `research/competitors/*.md`
+- `research/market/*.md`
+- `discovery/calls/*.md`
+- `memory/research.md`
+- `memory/discovery.md`
+
+Format:
+```
+### Option {code}: {name}
+
+| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
+|-----------|-------|----------|
+| {dim 1} | {1-5} | {specific evidence with source and grade} |
+| {dim 2} | {1-5} | {specific evidence} |
+...
+
+**Total**: {sum} / {max possible}
+```
+
+## Step 3 — Side-by-Side Comparison
+
+Produce a comparison matrix:
+
+```
+| Dimension | {Option A} | {Option B} | {Option C} | ... |
+|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----|
+| {dim 1} | {score} | {score} | {score} | |
+| {dim 2} | {score} | {score} | {score} | |
+...
+| **Total** | **{sum}** | **{sum}** | **{sum}** | |
+```
+
+## Step 4 — Pressure-Test the Leader
+
+The highest-scoring option gets a `/critical-reasoning` pass. Ask the user:
+"Option {X} scores highest. Want to pressure-test it before recommending?"
+
+If yes → run `/critical-reasoning` on that option specifically.
+
+## Step 5 — Update Scoring Memory
+
+Write results to `memory/scoring.md`:
+- Update the Options Reference with any new options
+- Update the Scoring Matrix with all scores and evidence
+- Update the Recommended Strategy section:
+  - **Lead option**: {code} — {name}
+  - **Rationale**: {why it scored highest, 2-3 sentences}
+  - **Key risks**: {from the scoring and critical reasoning}
+  - **Fallback**: {second-highest option and when to switch}
+
+## Step 6 — Report
+
+> **Options compared — {count} options scored across {count} dimensions**
+> - **Winner**: {option code} — {name} ({score}/{max})
+> - **Runner-up**: {option code} — {name} ({score}/{max})
+> - **Biggest differentiator**: {dimension where the gap is largest}
+> - **Biggest risk for winner**: {from critical reasoning or lowest-scoring dimension}
+> - Output: `memory/scoring.md` updated

package/template/skills/critical-reasoning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+name: critical-reasoning
+description: Pressure-test any idea, strategy, decision, or plan. Use when you want to challenge assumptions, find blind spots, or stress-test thinking before committing. Works for any domain — not just strategy.
+---
+
+# Critical Reasoning
+
+Pressure-test an idea, strategy, decision, or plan before committing to it. This skill helps you find what you might be missing.
+
+**When to use**: Before making a decision, after forming a hypothesis, when something feels too good to be true, or when you want a second opinion on your thinking.
+
+---
+
+## How to Run
+
+1. Identify what's being tested — a strategy, hypothesis, decision, plan, or assumption
+2. Run through all 4 lenses in order
+3. Write findings directly into the relevant project file (executive summary, decisions.md, or a new memo)
+
+---
+
+## Lens 1 — Is It True?
+
+Challenge the evidence behind the idea.
+
+Ask:
+- **What's being claimed?** State it in one sentence.
+- **What evidence supports it?** List each piece with its source and evidence grade.
+- **What would prove it wrong?** If nothing could prove it wrong, it's not a testable claim.
+- **Are we confusing correlation with causation?** Just because two things happened together doesn't mean one caused the other.
+- **What's the base rate?** How often does this type of thing actually succeed? (e.g., "Most market entries fail" is a useful base rate.)
+- **What are we assuming without evidence?** List every hidden assumption. Which ones, if wrong, would collapse the entire argument?
+
+For each assumption found, rate it:
+- **Load-bearing**: If this is wrong, the whole idea falls apart
+- **Important**: Changes the approach significantly
+- **Minor**: Can be adjusted without major impact
+
+---
+
+## Lens 2 — What Happens Next?
+
+Think through the consequences — intended and unintended.
+
+Ask:
+- **First-order effects**: What happens immediately if we do this?
+- **Second-order effects**: How will others react? Competitors, customers, partners, team members?
+- **Third-order effects**: What feedback loops could this create? Does success make the next step easier or harder?
+- **Who benefits and who loses?** Map the stakeholders. Those who lose will push back.
+- **What changes in the environment?** Will the market, technology, or regulatory landscape shift in ways that help or hurt this plan?
+- **Does this create lock-in?** If we go down this path, what options does it close off?
+
+---
+
+## Lens 3 — What Could Go Wrong?
+
+Identify risks, objections, and failure modes.
+
+Ask:
+- **What's the worst realistic outcome?** Not the absolute worst — the worst that could plausibly happen.
+- **Why hasn't someone already done this?** If the opportunity is obvious, there's usually a reason it hasn't been seized.
+- **Why would a smart, informed person disagree?** Steel-man the opposing view.
+- **What external shocks could derail this?** Economic changes, competitor moves, regulatory shifts, technology disruption.
+- **What are we depending on that we don't control?** Partners, market timing, customer behaviour, team capacity.
+- **How fast could things go wrong?** Some risks unfold slowly (giving time to react). Others hit suddenly with no warning.
+
+Rate each risk:
+- **Probability**: Low / Medium / High
+- **Impact**: Minor / Significant / Catastrophic
+- **Speed**: Gradual / Sudden
+- **Our control**: Full / Partial / None
+
+---
+
+## Lens 4 — Can It Actually Be Done?
+
+Test practical feasibility and execution risk.
+
+Ask:
+- **Do we have the skills, people, and resources?** Be honest — not what we wish we had, but what we actually have today.
+- **What's the hardest part?** Every plan has a crux. What is it, and how confident are we in solving it?
+- **What has to happen first?** Map the sequence. What's the critical path? What's blocking?
+- **Is the timeline realistic?** Plans almost always take longer than expected. Where are the bottlenecks?
+- **Can we start small and test?** Is there a way to validate the core assumption with minimal investment before going all-in?
+- **What would make us stop?** Define the exit criteria up front. What evidence would tell us to pivot or abandon?
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+After running all 4 lenses, produce a summary:
+
+1. **Verdict**: Strong / Promising but risky / Needs more evidence / Weak — with a one-sentence explanation
+2. **Load-bearing assumptions**: The 2-3 assumptions that matter most (from Lens 1)
+3. **Top risks**: The 2-3 biggest risks (from Lens 3), rated by probability x impact
+4. **Strongest objection**: The single best argument against this idea (from Lens 3)
+5. **Recommended actions**: What to do next — validate assumptions, mitigate risks, test small, or proceed with confidence
+6. **Confidence level**: How confident are we? What would increase or decrease confidence?
+
+---
+
+## Tips
+
+- **Don't skip lenses because they feel redundant.** Each one catches different things.
+- **Write down findings as you go.** Don't just think through them — the act of writing reveals gaps.
+- **Be specific.** "It might not work" is useless. "Conversion rates below 3% would make unit economics negative" is useful.
+- **It's OK to conclude the idea is strong.** Critical reasoning isn't about finding fault — it's about finding truth.

package/template/skills/decision/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+---
+name: decision
+description: Record a strategic decision with full rationale, alternatives considered, evidence, and reversibility assessment. Updates memory files and executive summary. Use whenever a meaningful strategic choice is made.
+---
+
+# Decision
+
+Record a strategic decision with full context so future sessions understand what was decided and why.
+
+---
+
+## Step 0 — Capture the Decision
+
+Ask the user:
+
+1. **What was decided?** — one clear sentence
+2. **What alternatives were considered?** — list the options that were rejected
+3. **What evidence supports this choice?** — specific findings, data, or call insights
+4. **Is this reversible?** — Easy (change anytime), Moderate (some rework), Hard (significant sunk cost), Irreversible
+5. **What would cause us to revisit this?** — specific trigger or evidence that would reopen the decision
+
+## Step 1 — Optional: Pressure-Test
+
+If the decision is rated Moderate, Hard, or Irreversible → ask the user:
+"This is a {difficulty}-to-reverse decision. Want to run `/critical-reasoning` on it before recording?"
+
+If yes → run `/critical-reasoning` first. If no → proceed.
+
+## Step 2 — Write to Decision Log
+
+Append to `memory/decisions.md`:
+
+```
+### Decision {N}: {title}
+
+**Date**: {date}
+**Decided**: {what was decided}
+**Alternatives considered**:
+- {option A} — rejected because {reason}
+- {option B} — rejected because {reason}
+
+**Evidence**:
+- {evidence 1} [{grade}]
+- {evidence 2} [{grade}]
+
+**Reversibility**: {Easy/Moderate/Hard/Irreversible}
+**Revisit trigger**: {what would cause us to reopen this}
+```
+
+## Step 3 — Update MEMORY.md
+
+Add a one-liner to `memory/MEMORY.md` Key Decisions section:
+
+```
+{N}. {decision summary} ({reversibility}) — {date}
+```
+
+## Step 4 — Update Executive Summary
+
+If the decision affects the project strategy (product, GTM, positioning, kill conditions):
+- Update the relevant section of `docs/executive-summary.md`
+- Note the decision and its rationale
+
+If the decision is operational (tooling, process, scheduling) → skip this step.
+
+## Step 5 — Rebuild Snapshots
+
+If the decision affects strategy → run `/rebuild-snapshots` for `context/project-state.md` at minimum.
+
+## Step 6 — Confirm
+
+> **Decision recorded — #{N}: {title}**
+> - Reversibility: {rating}
+> - Revisit trigger: {trigger}
+> - Files updated: memory/decisions.md, memory/MEMORY.md{, docs/executive-summary.md if applicable}

package/template/skills/enrich-entity/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+name: enrich-entity
+description: Produce complete enrichment for a {{ENTITY_TYPE}} so it appears fully populated in the dashboard and research files. Use when adding a new entity to the project or when an entity has incomplete research.
+---
+
+# Enrich Entity
+
+Produce complete enrichment for a {{ENTITY_TYPE}} so it appears fully populated in the dashboard grid. Empty columns in the capability map mean either the research files are missing or the map hasn't been updated.
+
+---
+
+## How the Dashboard Gets Its Data
+
+```
+research/competitors/{slug}-*.md  ──▶  build-data.js  ──▶  competitors.json
+memory/research.md (capability map table)
+```
+
+An entity needs entries in **both** the capability map (memory/research.md) and individual research files to be fully enriched.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Check What Already Exists
+
+```bash
+# Which research files exist?
+ls research/competitors/ | grep SLUG
+
+# Is it in the capability map table?
+grep -i "NAME" memory/research.md
+```
+
+If all fields are populated → no action needed. If files exist but columns are empty → the capability map needs updating (Step 4). If no files → full research required (Step 2–5).
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Research (if files are missing)
+
+Minimum sources before writing anything:
+
+| Source | What to get |
+|--------|-------------|
+| Company website | Features, pricing page, target customers, platform support |
+| LinkedIn (company + founders) | Team size, employee count, prior employers |
+| Review platforms (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot) | Customer sentiment, praise/complaint themes, ratings |
+| Industry press | Funding, acquisitions, product launches |
+| Funding databases (Crunchbase, PitchBook) | Funding rounds, investors, revenue estimates |
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Create Research Files
+
+Files go in `research/competitors/`. Slug = lowercase name, spaces replaced with hyphens.
+
+| File | Key sections |
+|------|-------------|
+| `{slug}-overview.md` | Founders, founding problem, entry wedge, metrics, competitive position |
+| `{slug}-capabilities.md` | Feature comparison, pricing model, cost ranges, GTM motion, lock-in analysis |
+| `{slug}-trajectory.md` | Investment signals (funding/hiring/product), roadmap, convergence risk, 12-month outlook |
+| `{slug}-relevance.md` | How this entity relates to {{PROJECT_NAME}} — complement, competitor, or partner |
+
+Each file must start with:
+```markdown
+# {Name} — {Topic}
+
+**Research Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
+**Analyst**: {{PROJECT_NAME}} Pod
+
+## TL;DR
+
+<!-- 2–3 sentence summary -->
+
+---
+```
+
+Every factual claim must be tagged with an evidence grade: [CONFIRMED], [SECONDARY], [INFERENCE], or [ASSUMPTION]. See `docs/memos/evidence-grading.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Update Capability Map
+
+Add or update the entity's row in `memory/research.md` Entity Capability Map table. Fill all columns.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — Build and Verify
+
+```bash
+cd dashboard && node build-data.js
+```
+
+**Verification checklist**:
+- [ ] Entity appears in `dashboard/data/competitors.json`
+- [ ] All capability map columns populated
+- [ ] All 4 research files exist in `research/competitors/`
+- [ ] Each file has a TL;DR section
+- [ ] Evidence grades applied to factual claims
+- [ ] No [ASSUMPTION] tags where research could provide [SECONDARY] or better
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+- Creating research files but forgetting to update the capability map in `memory/research.md`
+- Forgetting to run `build-data.js` after updating files
+- Using the entity name inconsistently (capitalisation, abbreviations) across files
+- Missing the TL;DR section that `build-data.js` extracts

package/template/skills/health-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+---
+name: health-check
+description: Run a project integrity audit. Checks for unreplaced placeholders, memory consistency, orphaned files, stale dashboard data, and structural issues. Reports a health score and actionable fixes.
+---
+
+# Health Check
+
+Run a comprehensive integrity audit of the project. Use this after onboarding, periodically during a project, or when something feels off.
+
+---
+
+## Check 1 — Unreplaced Placeholders
+
+```bash
+grep -r "{{" --include="*.md" --include="*.js" --include="*.html" --include="*.json" . | grep -v node_modules | grep -v .git
+```
+
+- If any `{{PLACEHOLDER}}` tokens remain → **FAIL**
+- List each unreplaced placeholder with file path and line number
+- Severity: **Critical** (project not fully onboarded)
+
+## Check 2 — Project Configuration
+
+Check if `project.config.json` exists at the repo root.
+- If missing → **WARN** (older template version or onboarding incomplete)
+- If present → validate all required fields are non-empty: projectName, projectSlug, entityType, modules
+
+## Check 3 — Memory File Consistency
+
+### 3a. Kill Conditions Alignment
+Compare kill conditions across all locations where they appear:
+- `memory/MEMORY.md` Kill Conditions table
+- `docs/executive-summary.md` §6
+- `memory/discovery.md` Kill Condition Tracker (if discovery module active)
+- `context/project-state.md`
+
+All four should have the same kill conditions with consistent statuses.
+- Mismatches → **FAIL** with details of which files disagree
+
+### 3b. Entity Capability Map vs Research Files
+Read `memory/research.md` Entity Capability Map. For each entity listed:
+- Check that research files exist in `research/competitors/{slug}-*.md`
+- Entities in the map with no research files → **WARN**
+- Research files that exist but aren't in the capability map → **WARN**
+
+### 3c. MEMORY.md Size
+Count lines in `memory/MEMORY.md`.
+- Over 200 lines → **WARN** (context loading will be slow, needs pruning)
+- Over 300 lines → **FAIL** (must prune)
+
+## Check 4 — Dashboard Data Freshness
+
+Compare timestamps:
+```bash
+# Source file last modified
+stat -f %m memory/research.md
+stat -f %m docs/output/status-blurb.md
+stat -f %m docs/executive-summary.md
+
+# Dashboard JSON last modified
+stat -f %m dashboard/data/overview.json
+stat -f %m dashboard/data/competitors.json
+stat -f %m dashboard/data/entities.json
+```
+
+- If any source file is newer than its corresponding JSON → **WARN** (dashboard is stale, run `cd dashboard && node build-data.js`)
+
+## Check 5 — File Structure
+
+### 5a. Orphaned Files
+Check for files in the repo root that should be in a subdirectory:
+- `.md` files that aren't README.md, CLAUDE.md, STATUS.md, CHANGELOG.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, LICENSE → **WARN**
+- `.csv` or `.json` files in root → **WARN**
+
+### 5b. Versioned Files
+```bash
+find . -name "*_v[0-9]*" -o -name "*_old*" -o -name "*_backup*" -o -name "*_new*" | grep -v node_modules | grep -v .git
+```
+- Any versioned files found → **WARN** (keep only latest, rename clean, delete outdated)
+
+### 5c. Empty Directories
+Check that key directories have content (not just `.gitkeep`):
+- After onboarding: `research/competitors/`, `data/` should have files within a few sessions
+- Flag directories that are still empty after the project has been active for multiple sessions
+
+## Check 6 — Template Usage
+
+For each call notes file in `discovery/calls/`:
+- Check it follows the structure in `templates/call-notes.md` (has Key Takeaways, Pain Points, WTP Signals sections)
+- Missing sections → **WARN**
+
+For each competitor file in `research/competitors/`:
+- Check it has a TL;DR section and evidence grades
+- Missing → **WARN**
+
+## Check 7 — Evidence Grading Coverage
+
+Scan all files in `research/` and `discovery/calls/` for factual claims without evidence grades:
+- Count claims tagged [CONFIRMED], [SECONDARY], [INFERENCE], [ASSUMPTION]
+- Count untagged factual statements (heuristic: sentences with numbers, dates, or company names)
+- Report the ratio: `{tagged} / {tagged + untagged}` as evidence coverage percentage
+- Below 70% → **WARN**
+
+## Check 8 — Module Consistency
+
+If `project.config.json` exists, check module configuration:
+- If `discovery: false` → verify `discovery/` directory doesn't contain working files (only `.gitkeep`)
+- If `dashboard: false` → verify `dashboard/` was removed
+- If `pipeline: false` → verify pipeline-related skills are removed
+
+---
+
+## Health Score
+
+Calculate and report:
+
+| Rating | Criteria |
+|--------|----------|
+| **Healthy** (100%) | Zero FAILs, zero WARNs |
+| **Good** (80–99%) | Zero FAILs, some WARNs |
+| **Needs Attention** (50–79%) | 1–2 FAILs or many WARNs |
+| **Unhealthy** (<50%) | 3+ FAILs |
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Project Health Report — {date}
+
+**Score**: {Healthy/Good/Needs Attention/Unhealthy} ({percentage}%)
+
+### Critical Issues (must fix)
+- {issue description} — {file path}
+
+### Warnings (should fix)
+- {issue description} — {file path}
+
+### Passed
+- {check name} ✓
+
+### Recommended Actions
+1. {most important fix}
+2. {second most important}
+3. ...
+```